Scroll about two thirds of the way down, or so. The caption alongside the photo says "March 3, 1977 Walter Schilling took this photograph in Hamburg, Germany. The object possessed a strange rotating effect with a glowing fluorescent mast. The UFO was close enough to the ground to create a 30 foot shadow."

Whether it's a fake or not is another matter, but at any rate, this is no "long lost McMinnville Photograph."

8 Comments:

Hamburg, McMinnville - who cares? A good general rule for ascertaining the relative value of UFO photos would be: if it's not a fake, it's blurry and ambiguous, and if it's not blurry and ambiguous, it's a fake.

Even in the "old days," the probative value of conventional photographs provided with negatives was next to zero except among those who deeply wanted to believe they were genuine; now, in the digital age, the ease of faking a digital photo only complicates the matter further.

As for UFO casebooks collection of "best UFO photos," the website's author seems to have this idea that posting a buttload of images with next to zero probative value (including some glaring fakes) props up the whole lot. This is nothing new in ufology. Stan Friedman used the same general reasoning defending the alleged ET nature of UFOs to Seth Shostak on Art Bell when he cited the balance of physical trace cases. Not a single one of them stands as unimpeachable evidence of ET visitation on its own, so cite them all together, call your sophistry "scientific," and receive the accolades of the unwashed masses.

If all the photos of UFOs video and photographed were done alone we could argue that they may be faked. But many of them are done with others there or reporting the same objects at the time of the photographs. Some of the witnesses have fine character and if they were photographing any other incident they would be believed.I believe most debunkers just don't trust anyone. Even though some of these people do not want the limelife and who don't make a dine for there photos, videos, and just want some answers. Of course there are thousands of these photos in Mexico by police and journalist and farmers, but that is Mexico, and can't be real. We all know those farmers are well known for major conspiracies. .Recently I viewed a video with a solid object was filmed by the camera of a police car in Mexico - oh the lengths these comparators will take.

A quote from the Trents:According to Mrs. Trent, over the years they received "phone calls, letters, and direct visitations from people who called them liars, hoaxers, and other uncomplementary names".

Joseph CappUFO Media Matters

Note: Here is the rebuttal by Bruce Macaabee to the Klasss' and Sheaffers'(you asked me to post) critiqueOf the real Trent Photos.http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html

what a wicked impugnation and slur on 'debunkers' like rdbrock you deliver when you assert your belief they "just don't trust anyone".

That's a damned lie!

They trust the extraordinary claims of anyone and everyone - no matter how preposterous or unproveable - so long as those claims can be used as handy-dandy instant refutation devices for whatever's the strange story of the moment.

Look at the way so many 'skeptics' instantly rushed to embrace the two Irishmen who claimed THEY were responsible for making the crop circles.

And you see, that there's the problem with people like you who have a mind so open you let your brains fall out: at the time you probably started asking dumb questions like, "even if crop circles ARE all just a hoax, how do we know these Irish guys were responsible?" whereas if you were an educated Oxford University scientific Professor type like that there Richard Hawkins, you'd've had the sense to state on British TV no further explanation was necessary.

Heck, I bet when rdbrock said 'in the "old days," the probative value of conventional photographs provided with negatives was next to zero except among those who deeply wanted to believe they were genuine' you were probably thinking, "and the probative value of ANY photographs, no matter how good the negatives they come with, and indeed any kind of evidence, will ALWAYS be next to zero to those who deeply WANT to believe they're NOT genuine".

Heck, you were probably even thinking, if the "good general rule for ascertaining the relative value of UFO photos would be: if it's not a fake, it's blurry and ambiguous, and if it's not blurry and ambiguous, it's a fake", then that'd mean the poorer the quality of the photo, the more acceptable it'd be as 'scientific' evidence to rdbrock, while the better the quality of the photo the more he'd automatically discard it as any kind of evidence at all.

None of which, to you, probably made a whole lot of scientific sense.

But that's because you ain't smart enough to be a 'debunker', and why you'll never get to be one of them there highly educated Oxford University science professor don types.